Did Joshua Stop the Sun?

Dale · Jan 20, 2019

According to Joshua 10: 9-15, Joshua asked God to stop the sun in the sky. Both the sun and the moon stopped for some hours, during a battle. God assured that the Israelite army would have enough light to pursue the enemy.

The story is a bit puzzling. According to the Book of Joshua, the enemy was already in retreat, apparently disorganized retreat, not to say retreating in panic, when God worked the miracle. God had already thrown "them into confusion before Israel" before Joshua asked God to stop the sun and the moon. One would think that God would save such an extraordinary miracle for a time when it was needed. God stopped the sun in the sky so that the attacking Israelites would have light. It is not clear why Joshua also asked God to stop the moon, which may have been only a crescent moon, or why God bothered to do so. Of course, it makes good poetry.

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

Some think that the event was really an eclipse, and only a confused or exaggerated account made it sound like a world-stopping miracle. This is the modern scientific view. It does explain why the sun and the moon are both mentioned in this passage.

Creationists accept the account as written.

9 After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise.10 The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.
12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!
15 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.
--Joshua 10: 9-15 NIV

A creationist view:

"In fact, the mention of the moon also standing still seems to confirm both the divine authorship of the account and the fact that it is the Earth which moves. Since all Joshua needed was extra sunlight, and most ancients believed the sun moves, not the Earth, a human author of a fictitious account would only have needed to refer to the sun stopping."

This is from an article by Russell Griggs on Creation.com. He has it completely wrong. If the earth stopped rotating and stood still, the sun would stop in the sky but the moon would keep moving. Look at the solar system, or the sun, earth and moon as a system. The sun is stationary, so if the earth stopped rotating, it would stand still in the sky. The moon, in contrast, is not stationary, it is rotating around the earth, so the moon would keep moving. For both the sun and the moon to stand still in the sky, God would have to do at least two miracles, stop the earth's rotation and stop the moon in its orbit. As I said earlier, if God is trying to help the Israelites in battle, why would God stop the moon, which has no bearing on the battle?

Creationists such as Russell Griggs are under the impression that the earth's rotation could be stopped without any particular consequences.

What would happen if the earth's rotation stopped, even gradually, has been scientifically modeled by ESRI, the Environmental Systems Research Institute. ESRI concluded that a stopping of rotation would cause "devastating earthquakes" as the earth's crust adjusts to the lack of centrifugal force. The result would be "two large polar oceans" and "a huge equatorial megacontinent." The actual consequences of earth's rotation being stopped, even briefly, would be catastrophic and irreversible.

Did God stop the sun and moon at Joshua's request? For myself, as a Christian, it makes more sense to believe that God's greatest miracle is in the New Testament. The resurrection of Jesus is the greatest miracle in the New Testament, and it points to the Divinity of Jesus.

Link to Creationist site:
Joshua’s long day - creation.com

Link to ESRI, Environmental Systems Research Institute
If the Earth Stood Still

Dale · Jan 20, 2019

In the Creation.com article already referred to, Russell Griggs gives two reasons why we should believe that the sun and moon stopped for Joshua.

"Christianity is a religion of the miraculous," he says.

and

"Miracles rest on testimony, not on scientific analyses."

I don't know why anyone would put testimony above scientific analysis, unless this expresses a basic hostility to science. I'm not sure what it means to say that Christianity is all about miracles. Certainly miracles, the power of God to do things that seem impossible for mortals, are a part of Christianity. Yet the world we live in is in many ways predictable. The sun and moon rise in the east. We have an annual cycle of seasons. Most Christians see the operation of natural law, predictability, as a sign of God's power. God ordained the laws of nature. He doesn't tinker with them all the time.

17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
James 1:17 NIV

In the RSV,

17 Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.[a]
a. James 1:17 Other ancient authorities read variation due to a shadow of turning

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
James 1:17 KJV

James sees God as the Father of Lights, a God of constancy, not a God constantly meddling with the creation.

Dale · Jan 20, 2019

The next creationist source I want to look at is an odd one because geocentricity.com apparently rejects Copernicus. They believe that the astronomers have it wrong and the sun revolves around the earth. One of the references cited is Primitive Baptist, which is apparently the origin of these views.

One of the reasons I must disagree with their approach is that they drag in pagan myths from around the world to back up the account in Joshua.

"The preponderance of long night tales in the Americas would rule out the theory that Joshua’s long day was a miracle which was local to Canaan."

Some historical authors mention a Chinese legend of time when the sun did not set for ten days. Apparently this is based on a Chinese manuscript which has been lost in the last couple of hundred years. It is not available today. The Geocentricity site makes use of this legend.

Where does this leave the creationists? They reject science, they reject any body of knowledge that relies on observation, measurement or calculation. At the same time, they go out of their way to search for primitive myths of pre-literate peoples. They draw on pagan myth while rejecting calculations based on Newton's Law of Gravitation and the laws of motion. What sense does this make?

Link
Joshua's Long Day Worldwide

Dale · Jan 20, 2019

The geocentrism site stresses the inerrancy of the Bible.

"The Bible claims itself inerrant. It either is or it is not."

This is backed up by referring to 2 Timothy 3:16:

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV

Perhaps the authors of this site should take a harder look at this passage. It doesn't say that the Bible is an infallible text of geography, history, medicine or the sciences. What it does say is that Scripture is excellent for "training in righteousness," a source of moral truth. Another difficulty is that to the Primitive Baptists, Scripture includes the New Testament. At the time Paul wrote 2nd Timothy, much of the New Testament, including the Gospels, had not been written yet, and none of it had been canonized. What Paul meant by Scripture and what modern Christians mean by Scripture simply aren't the same thing.

Moreover, Paul also gave a few warnings:

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.
Timothy 1:3-4 NIV

Since genealogies are found in the Old Testament, it is significant that Paul mentions "myths" and "genealogies" in the same sentence as things that should not be taken too seriously. When Paul tells people not to devote themselves to genealogies, it sounds like he is telling Christians not to get too involved in the details of the Old Testament.

3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

6 If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
1 Timothy 4:5-9 NIV

Here Paul warns people against "godless myths." What are the myths he is referring to? A couple of verses earlier he is talking about abstaining from foods. Yet large parts of the Old Testament teach abstinence from certain foods.

Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.
Titus 1: 13-14 NIV

The various statements of Paul in the New Testament make it clear that the Old Testament is useful for moral instruction. Paul also shows us that a complete assessment of the Old Testament is more difficult than many people seem to think.

Link
Joshua's Long Day Worldwide

d taylor · Jan 20, 2019

Dale said:
According to Joshua 10: 9-15, Joshua asked God to stop the sun in the sky. Both the sun and the moon stopped for some hours, during a battle. God assured that the Israelite army would have enough light to pursue the enemy.

The story is a bit puzzling. According to the Book of Joshua, the enemy was already in retreat, apparently disorganized retreat, not to say retreating in panic, when God worked the miracle. God had already thrown "them into confusion before Israel" before Joshua asked God to stop the sun and the moon. One would think that God would save such an extraordinary miracle for a time when it was needed. God stopped the sun in the sky so that the attacking Israelites would have light. It is not clear why Joshua also asked God to stop the moon, which may have been only a crescent moon, or why God bothered to do so. Of course, it makes good poetry.

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

Some think that the event was really an eclipse, and only a confused or exaggerated account made it sound like a world-stopping miracle. This is the modern scientific view. It does explain why the sun and the moon are both mentioned in this passage.

Creationists accept the account as written.

9 After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise.10 The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.
12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!
15 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.
--Joshua 10: 9-15 NIV

A creationist view:

"In fact, the mention of the moon also standing still seems to confirm both the divine authorship of the account and the fact that it is the Earth which moves. Since all Joshua needed was extra sunlight, and most ancients believed the sun moves, not the Earth, a human author of a fictitious account would only have needed to refer to the sun stopping."

This is from an article by Russell Griggs on Creation.com. He has it completely wrong. If the earth stopped rotating and stood still, the sun would stop in the sky but the moon would keep moving. Look at the solar system, or the sun, earth and moon as a system. The sun is stationary, so if the earth stopped rotating, it would stand still in the sky. The moon, in contrast, is not stationary, it is rotating around the earth, so the moon would keep moving. For both the sun and the moon to stand still in the sky, God would have to do at least two miracles, stop the earth's rotation and stop the moon in its orbit. As I said earlier, if God is trying to help the Israelites in battle, why would God stop the moon, which has no bearing on the battle?

Creationists such as Russell Griggs are under the impression that the earth's rotation could be stopped without any particular consequences.

What would happen if the earth's rotation stopped, even gradually, has been scientifically modeled by ESRI, the Environmental Systems Research Institute. ESRI concluded that a stopping of rotation would cause "devastating earthquakes" as the earth's crust adjusts to the lack of centrifugal force. The result would be "two large polar oceans" and "a huge equatorial megacontinent." The actual consequences of earth's rotation being stopped, even briefly, would be catastrophic and irreversible.

Did God stop the sun and moon at Joshua's request? For myself, as a Christian, it makes more sense to believe that God's greatest miracle is in the New Testament. The resurrection of Jesus is the greatest miracle in the New Testament, and it points to the Divinity of Jesus.

Link to Creationist site:
Joshua’s long day - creation.com

Link to ESRI, Environmental Systems Research Institute
If the Earth Stood Still

The Bible clearly states that Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stop. Since it is the sun and moon that move and not the earth, that would only be the correct command Joshua could have given.

Not only did Joshua command the sun and moon to stop but the Bible states that God listen (headed the voice of a man) to Joshua's command and that means God granted what Joshua commanded and stopped the sun and moon from moving.

No where is there any hit that God understood that Joshua was a primitive man, that thought the sun and moon was moving and did not understand that it was actually the earth moving. So when Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stop moving God stopped the earth from rotating, because Joshua just did not understand.

Jadis40 · Jan 20, 2019

Except that we live in a heliocentric solar system, and the earth is in orbit around the sun, and it's never stopped rotating. So, I don't take the sun and moon standing still as literal.

So, short answer to the initial question: Did Joshua stop the sun? No.

SkyWriting · Jan 21, 2019

Dale said:
I don't know why anyone would put testimony above scientific analysis, unless this expresses a basic hostility to science.

To document ones analysis requires testimony of the data observed and conditions.
Often in a notebook.

SkyWriting · Jan 21, 2019

Dale said:
According to Joshua 10: 9-15, Joshua asked God to stop the sun in the sky. Both the sun and the moon stopped for some hours, during a battle. God assured that the Israelite army would have enough light to pursue the enemy.

The story is a bit puzzling. According to the Book of Joshua, the enemy was already in retreat, apparently disorganized retreat, not to say retreating in panic, when God worked the miracle. God had already thrown "them into confusion before Israel" before Joshua asked God to stop the sun and the moon. One would think that God would save such an extraordinary miracle for a time when it was needed. God stopped the sun in the sky so that the attacking Israelites would have light. It is not clear why Joshua also asked God to stop the moon, which may have been only a crescent moon, or why God bothered to do so. Of course, it makes good poetry.

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

Some think that the event was really an eclipse, and only a confused or exaggerated account made it sound like a world-stopping miracle. This is the modern scientific view. It does explain why the sun and the moon are both mentioned in this passage.

Creationists accept the account as written.

9 After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise.10 The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.
12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!
15 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.
--Joshua 10: 9-15 NIV

A creationist view:

"In fact, the mention of the moon also standing still seems to confirm both the divine authorship of the account and the fact that it is the Earth which moves. Since all Joshua needed was extra sunlight, and most ancients believed the sun moves, not the Earth, a human author of a fictitious account would only have needed to refer to the sun stopping."

This is from an article by Russell Griggs on Creation.com. He has it completely wrong. If the earth stopped rotating and stood still, the sun would stop in the sky but the moon would keep moving. Look at the solar system, or the sun, earth and moon as a system. The sun is stationary, so if the earth stopped rotating, it would stand still in the sky. The moon, in contrast, is not stationary, it is rotating around the earth, so the moon would keep moving. For both the sun and the moon to stand still in the sky, God would have to do at least two miracles, stop the earth's rotation and stop the moon in its orbit. As I said earlier, if God is trying to help the Israelites in battle, why would God stop the moon, which has no bearing on the battle?

Creationists such as Russell Griggs are under the impression that the earth's rotation could be stopped without any particular consequences.

What would happen if the earth's rotation stopped, even gradually, has been scientifically modeled by ESRI, the Environmental Systems Research Institute. ESRI concluded that a stopping of rotation would cause "devastating earthquakes" as the earth's crust adjusts to the lack of centrifugal force. The result would be "two large polar oceans" and "a huge equatorial megacontinent." The actual consequences of earth's rotation being stopped, even briefly, would be catastrophic and irreversible.

Did God stop the sun and moon at Joshua's request? For myself, as a Christian, it makes more sense to believe that God's greatest miracle is in the New Testament. The resurrection of Jesus is the greatest miracle in the New Testament, and it points to the Divinity of Jesus.

Link to Creationist site:
Joshua’s long day - creation.com

Link to ESRI, Environmental Systems Research Institute
If the Earth Stood Still

The story is a bit puzzling.

miamited · Jan 23, 2019

HI dale,

I haven't read your entire treatise, but...

You asked a question early on that I thought indicated that you may be a bit confused. You asked:

Dale said:
"Miracles rest on testimony, not on scientific analyses."

I don't know why anyone would put testimony above scientific analysis,

I think you're missing what Mr. Griggs was actually saying when he said that miracles rest on testimony and not on scientific analysis. I believe that because the question you asked concerning why one would put testimony above scientific analysis indicates such misunderstanding. You say that you believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Can you prove that position through scientific analysis?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

yeshuaslavejeff · Jan 24, 2019

Dale said:
The story is a bit puzzling.

Actually no , not puzzling at all, when God is Believed.

Only later, when men who did not believe God came up with "many devices" to try to overthrow the truth, to deceive others , did it become puzzling, and then only to those who did not believe God - who did not put their trust in God and do not rely on God for all things, OR (worse for those who cause the stumbling) for little ones whose faith in Jesus was not strong enough and simple and true enough to withstand the deceptions readily - who were caused to stumble in their faith by the deceiver or the false tales ...

JackRT · Jan 24, 2019

Dale said:
At the time Paul wrote 2nd Timothy, much of the New Testament, including the Gospels, had not been written yet, and none of it had been canonized.

Actually the pastoral epistles were not written by Paul. They are pseudopigrahic documents written some 60 years after Paul's death.

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).

First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. Papyrus Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)

Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)

Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)

Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

NobleMouse · Jan 24, 2019

JackRT said:
Actually the pastoral epistles were not written by Paul. They are pseudopigrahic documents written some 60 years after Paul's death.

Hi JackRT - I would question your source on that one... all the major biblical references and studies I've seen suggest they were in fact written by Paul. The following gives a pretty good summary of why these are believed to have been authored by Paul:

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...-paul-is-the-author-of-the-pastoral-epistles/

yeshuaslavejeff · Jan 24, 2019

And most important of all, Yahweh Says they are by Paul, inspired and breathed by Yahweh, as His Word Clearly Says.

Even if all men on earth contradicted God's Word, God's Word is TrUTH, as written, "God cannot lie, as God is not a man, though all men be liars" ....
(may be paraphrased of two verses)

NobleMouse said:
Hi JackRT - I would question your source on that one... all the major biblical references and studies I've seen suggest they were in fact written by Paul. The following gives a pretty good summary of why these are believed to have been authored by Paul... ... ...

d taylor · Jan 24, 2019

Imagine that, science knows more about God's creation and how it works, than God the creator does. Why would anyone what to believe the Bible over science.

As christian's that should be the last place to look in the Bible and when we finally do, of course the Bible must match up with science before the Bible should be believed.

yeshuaslavejeff · Jan 24, 2019

Wrong, unless this is ironic sarcasm.

The Bible is always right.

Science is wrong if it contradicts the Creator even in a tiny detail.
(including motive and intent of the heart)

As the Creator Says (of the heart) , whoever puts their trust in man,
I , Yahweh, curse .

Yes, even believers who put their trust in man, are cursed. (until and if they are granted mercy for repentance and they repent) .

d taylor said:
Imagine that, science knows more about God's creation and how it works, than God the creator does. Why would anyone what to believe the Bible over science.

As christian's that should be the last place to look in the Bible and when we finally do, of course the Bible must match up with science before the Bible should be believed.

JackRT · Jan 24, 2019

NobleMouse said:
Hi JackRT - I would question your source on that one... all the major biblical references and studies I've seen suggest they were in fact written by Paul. The following gives a pretty good summary of why these are believed to have been authored by Paul:

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...-paul-is-the-author-of-the-pastoral-epistles/

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.

d taylor · Jan 24, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
Wrong, unless this is ironic sarcasm.

The Bible is always right.

Science is wrong if it contradicts the Creator even in a tiny detail.
(including motive and intent of the heart)

As the Creator Says (of the heart) , whoever puts their trust in man,
I , Yahweh, curse .

Yes, even believers who put their trust in man, are cursed. (until and if they are granted mercy for repentance and they repent) .

Ok then does the sun (moon ,stars) move over the earth or does the earth go around the sun

Dale · Jan 24, 2019

miamited said:
HI dale,

I haven't read your entire treatise, but...

You asked a question early on that I thought indicated that you may be a bit confused. You asked:

I think you're missing what Mr. Griggs was actually saying when he said that miracles rest on testimony and not on scientific analysis. I believe that because the question you asked concerning why one would put testimony above scientific analysis indicates such misunderstanding. You say that you believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Can you prove that position through scientific analysis?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

My position on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is essentially the same as Josh McDowell. You are probably familiar with his views. In particular, consider this. There were a number of men around the time of Christ who claimed to be the messiah, a military messiah, destined to overthrow the Roman occupation and re-establish the Kingdom of Israel, or Judah. All of these were executed by the Romans and the movement around them stopped dead when the Romans killed the man leading the movement. Christianity is the exception: The death of the founder did not stop the movement. That is very extraordinary.

Creationists don't seem to believe in natural laws. When they say that we are living in a world of miracles, what they mean is that nothing has to make sense, nothing is supposed to make sense. In the eyes of a creationist, God doesn't establish natural laws, He just fiddles with His creation. This is why I am suspicious when creationists say they believe in "testimony." It means that they don't believe in anything that can be measured or calculated, they see the world as unpredictable. How are creationists different from New Agers if they don't believe the world makes sense?

Ted, you start by acknowledging that you didn't read all of the four posts I started this thread with. I think you might learn something from them.

miamited · Jan 24, 2019

Hi dale,

Thanks for your response. You responded:

Dale said:
Creationists don't seem to believe in natural laws. When they say that we are living in a world of miracles, what they mean is that nothing has to make sense, nothing is supposed to make sense. In the eyes of a creationist, God doesn't establish natural laws, He just fiddles with His creation. This is why I am suspicious when creationists say they believe in "testimony." It means that they don't believe in anything that can be measured or calculated, they see the world as unpredictable. How are creationists different from New Agers if they don't believe the world makes sense?

That's all well and good and I'm quite familiar with Josh McDowell's work. However, you didn't answer the question. If you'd answer the question you'd likely gain an understanding of what Mr. Griggs was saying.

Can you prove the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, of which you claim to believe to be a true reality of life, through scientific methodology?

BTW Josh McDowell cannot. He can only prove it through trust in the testimonies given to us in the Scriptures.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited · Jan 24, 2019

Hi again dale,

Just wanted to let you know that I did go ahead and continue skimming the remainder of your initial posts. No, I did not learn anything else from them that pertains to this issue that I've questioned you on.

It's really just a very simple yes or no question. Do you believe that you can prove the resurrection of Jesus using scientific methodology? You've made the claim that you can't seem to understand why anyone would place testimonial evidence over and above the evidence provided through scientific methodology. Ok. So, can you prove Jesus resurrection through scientific methodology?

Just a very simple short and sweet yes or no will suffice. You are welcome to elaborate on your yes or no if you'd like, but it really isn't necessary. However, if you do, I promise that I will read your entire response to me on this question.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Did Joshua Stop the Sun?

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

Ted

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Ted

Ted

Similar threads